Indigenous Native Americans and Sovereignty Struggle

The sins of Doctrine of Discovery, Right of Conquest, and Hierarchy of all Mankind in Law versus legal

Recognition

The English who settled in Virginia starting in 1607 asserted that they owned the land. During the colonial period, individual colonist acquired real property primarily through grants from the Virginia Company, headrights, treasury rights, and military warrants.

The pre-existing ownership rights of the Native Americans, the current occupants, were dismissed. At various times the English stated simply that they owned the land through "right of discovery" and "right of conquest." Treaties were negotiated with different tribes in the 1600's and 1700's to extinguish Native American claims, but land was seized rather than purchased from the original inhabitants. The chain of title for parcels in Virginia starts with colonial records created by the English.

Various. (n.d.). How Colonists Acquired Title to Land in Virginia. How colonists acquired title to land in Virginia. Retrieved February 3, 2023, from http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/headright.html

The atrocities and land acquisitions across America through the Doctrine of Discovery and Right of Conquest, at the expense of the Native Americans is one of the worst records of American history. This is in addition to the ongoing push and pull of slavery and oppression in our history in its various forms. Most of this inequality stems from selfish business interests of the parties “taking” land and competing in commerce. We will see this more vividly when we get to Lincoln’s War (aka - the Civil War). It is valuable to recognize that those who have been born in one of the many nation-states of America with family that has been here for more than one generation, are now a Native American. The goal of every other commercial, corporate, or controlling power on the planet wants what you have. You are perceived by those controlling the world as having something that they want to take away; land and freedom.

The initial land grab in the Americas saw the Spanish and French leverage Biblical stories to justify land by Doctrine of Discovery and Conquest. The British kings and queens, not wanting to pay for the expense to occupy and colonize America, used the same Biblical stories and expanded the rules to include cultivation and improvement as translating to ownership. So, the British monarchs provided land grants, charters, and patents to get settlers to do the land acquisition for them, and then capitalize on the production and claim rights to the continent.

From the time Europeans arrived on American shores, the frontier—the edge territory between white man’s civilization and the untamed natural world—became a shared space of vast, clashing differences that led the U.S. government to authorize over 1,500 wars, attacks and raids on Indians, the most of any country in the world against its Indigenous people. By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 Indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492.

When Native Americans were slaughtered in the name of ... - history. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2023, from https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states

The above estimate does not account for those that died in between these dates to determine this total number; including birth rates and deaths over the time period.

Before the late 1700’s, large numbers of initial settlers who fled Europe for America actually had good relations with the Native Americans as they had common spiritual beliefs and were looking for forms of trade and self-protection. But, this was not to be the case permanently. And the usual opportunistic manipulators were British and European elite, military, company owners, bankers, proprietors, monarchs, and those with power through existing wealth who believed they could disproportionately benefit from controlling the land and production in America.

The changing sides of alliances:

It is no surprise that a majority of Native American groups sided with the British during the war. Recall, during the decades prior to the Revolution, both British and French entities were busy carving out alliances with Native groups to further their own regional gains over land and goods. The fur trade, in particular, was among the most profitable industries in North America during the eighteenth century. The trapping, trading, and selling of furs was a lucrative business for both natives and their European counterparts, in the colonies and abroad. With the Seven Years’ War (French and Indiana War), alliances were further entangled over which European power would better serve the lives and existence of American Indians. Powerful confederations, such as the Iroquois of up-colony New York, were among those courted by the British as a valuable ally. Following the war, Parliament established the Proclamation of 1763 that effectively created a boundary line running through the greater Appalachian Mountains of interior North America. The boundary would prohibit English settlers from moving farther west, encroaching on Native lands recognized by the British government. Many American settlers disregarded this agreement, and some American colonial politicians voiced outrage that such a deal prevented them from expanding their territories, an early sentiment that would evolve in the coming generations as Manifest Destiny in the nineteenth century. By the time of the American Revolution in 1775, tensions were already high among Native Americans and American colonists. That London would seek to exploit this tension, not unlike how Royal governors tried to create slave insurrections, shows us that the British were seeking a complete disruption to the prospect of American independence.

Allies and enemies: British and American attitudes towards Native Americans during the revolution. American Battlefield Trust. (2021, November 28). Retrieved February 2, 2023, from https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/allies-and-enemies

There are detailed historical accounts on the shifting alliances with the Native Americans if you look for the information. What is important to point out is the convenience of alliances the British military and elite used when it served their commercial and control purposes in the early formation of America. This theme carried throughout early America until our formal Declaration of Independence and the outcome of the “Revolutionary War”.

The attempt to starve out the indigenous Native Americans through mass Bison kill off (plus fur and meat trade over-commercialization) and the genocide of the same people, has had a larger impact on the ecosystem in North America than a large portion of industrialization. The reduction from 10 million to 500 Bison in 20 years is a huge impact on the natural ecosystem that existed. And it is estimated at one time there were as many as 60 million Bison on the continent.

Guess how many cows are estimated in America today? About 90-95 million. A cow is 800-1700 lbs at maturity while a Bison can grow to as large as 3000 lbs. Which one farts and poops more? Current popular thinking within the carbon footprint circles would have people believe that cows are worse contributors to the ecosystem than what was naturally occurring before European settlers.

Imagine this same type of population control employed against the current sovereign people by mass chicken culling, mass bovine slaughter, egg supply destruction, water pollution through heavy metal spraying and salt, and the growing season pollination destruction by limiting the ability to plant and grow diverse crops, and pollinator poisoning with man-made chemicals and GMO products. Certain individuals think man-made vaccines for pollinators are better than the Creators balanced ecosystem before we thought we knew better.

Sovereign Power Struggle

Looking closely and understanding the structure of our American government as it was originally conceived, it is apparent that the old British/Roman corporation structures are what are driving the division in our country today. The division is not due to the actual American government structure that was created from 1776 through 1790 with the first Confederation Constitution that lasted until 1860. The original government is in stark contrast to the current corporate business structure of the federal government, which currently includes; a litany of the entities like the Federal Reserve banking structure, IMF, the endless list of 3-letter agencies, corporations created for the states and local government, ownership of the world through a few investment companies with hidden owners, and “protected” non-profits.

Those charters, franchises, corporations, entities, and hidden bureaucracy is what our founding documents and government were attempting to avoid. The people are no longer operating under sovereign law as a man or woman when permitting control by the incorporated government and principalities. It is the opposite of the actual hierarchy under the Creator, and the opposite of how the American government was formed with the People (man and woman) at the top. The same is true for Common Law at court. People are at the top if they are fully accountable and responsible for themselves. Example below of where a “person” as a defendent or plaintiff (#7) is placed in the hierarchy of creation when represented in court.

Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition:

PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. People v. R. Co., 134 N.Y. 506, 31 N.E. 873.

[This is a clarification only for the adjective “natural”] The word in its natural and usual signification includes women as well as men. Commonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398, 177 N.E. 656.

Term may include artificial beings, as corporations, 1 Bla.Com. 123; 4 Bingh. 669; People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 23 N.Y. 242; quasi-corporations, Sedgw. Stat. & Const. L. 372; L. R. 5 App. Cas. 857; territorial corporations, Seymour v. School District, 53 Conn. 507, 3 A. 552; and foreign corporations, People v. McLean, 80 N.Y. 259; under statutes, forbidding the taking of property without due process of law and giving to all persons the equal protection of the laws, Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L.Ed. 819; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 17 S.Ct. 255, 165 U.S. 150, 41 L.Ed. 666; concerning claims arising from Indian depredations, U. S. v. Transp. Co., 17 S.Ct. 206, 164 U.S. 686, 41 L.Ed. 599; relating to taxation and the revenue laws, People v. Mc-Lean, 80 N.Y. 254; to attachments, Bray v. Wallingford, 20 Conn. 416; usurious contracts, Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249; applying to limitation of actions, Olcott v. R. Co., 20 N.Y. 210, 75 Am.Dec. 393; North Mo. R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453, 96 Am.Dec. 183; and concerning the admissibility as a witness of a party in his own behalf when the opposite party is a living person, La Farge v. Ins. Co., 22 N.Y. 352. A corporation is also a person under a penal statute; U. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392, 6 L.Ed. 502. Corporations are "persons" as that word is used in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment; Covington & L. Turnp. Co. v. Sandford, 17 S.Ct. 198, 164 U.S. 578, 41 L.Ed. 560; Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L.Ed. 819; People v. Fire Ass'n, 92 N.Y. 311, 44 Am.Rep. 380; U. S. v. Supply Co., 30 S.Ct. 15, 215 U.S. 50, 54 L.Ed. 87; contra, Central P. R. Co. v. Board, 60 Cal. 35. But a corporation of another state is not a "person" within the jurisdiction of the state until it has complied with the conditions of admission to do business in the state, Fire Ass'n of Phila. v. 1299

PERSON New York, 7 S.Ct. 108, 119 U.S. 110, 30 L.Ed. 342; and a statutory requirement of such conditions is not in conflict with the XIVth Amendment; Pembina Consol. S. M. & M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 8 S.Ct. 737, 125 U.S. 181, 189, 31 L.Ed. 650. It may include partnerships. In re Julian, D. C.Pa., 22 F.Supp. 97, 99. Also firms. State ex rel. Joseph R. Peebles Sons Co. v. State Board of Pharmacy, 127 Ohio St. 513, 89 N.E. 447, 448. "Persons" are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13, 122 P.2d 850, 853.

It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, Blair v. Worley, 1 Scam., Ill., 178; Appeal of Fox, 112 Pa. 337 ; 4 A. 149 ; but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them. Stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand., Va., 132.

A county is a person in a legal sense, Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not; In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U. S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192, but contra within the meaning of a statute, providing a penalty for 'the fraudulent alteration of a public record with intent that any "person" be defrauded, Martin v. State, 24 Tex. 61; and within the meaning of a covenant for quiet and peaceful possession against all and every person or persons; Giddings v. Holter, 19 Mont. 263, 48 P. 8. An Indian is a person, U. S. v. Crook, 5 Dill. 459, Fed.Cas.No.14,891; and a slave was so considered, in so far, as to be capable of committing a riot, in conjunction with white men, State v. Thackam, 1 Bay, S.C., 358. The estate of a decedent is a person, Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N.E. 914, 7 N.E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77; and where the statute makes the owner of a dog liable for injuries to any person, it includes the property of such person, Brewer v. Crosby, 11 Gray, Mass., 29; but where the statute provided damages for the bite of a dog which had previously bitten a person, it was held insufficient to show that the dog had previously bitten a goat, [1896] 2 Q.B. 109; a dog will not be included in the word in an act which authorizes a person to kill dogs running at large, Heisrodt v. Hackett, 34 Mich. 283, 22 Am.Rep. 529.

Where the statute prohibited any person from pursuing his usual vocation on the Lord's Day, it was held to apply to a judge holding court. Bass v. Irvin, 49 Ga. 436. A child en ventre sa mere is not a person. Dietrich v. Northampton, 138 Mass. 14, 52 Am.Rep. 242; but an infant is so considered; Madden v. Springfield, 131 Mass. 441.

In the United States bankruptcy act of 1898, it is provided that the word "persons" shall include corporations, except where otherwise specified, and officers, partnerships, and women, and, when used with reference to the commission of acts which are therein forbidden, shall include persons who are participants in the forbidden acts, and the agents, officers, and members of the board of directors or trustees, or their controlling bodies, of corporations. 11 U.S.C.A. § 1.

Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law.

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. IL

**** Items above in Bold and in [brackets] of added for attention ****

The world has been manipulated with barriers for the perpetrators to hide behind through these corporate entities (especially non-profits) and definitions of words. We think we need to have someone represent us to get satisfaction for grievances. All while the profits go to a hidden trust somewhere through charters and franchises.

Keep this in mind as you start to see the repeating patterns through time of the attempts of hidden powers to quietly steal your sovereignty. Also, keep this in mind as we continue to break down how our government and nation-states were created. All created by people (man and woman) to protect people. But, if we do not understand how it was built, and why, we can easily lose it in a blink of an eye and we all will be living on the reservation as “persons” with prescribed rights, duties and privileges, not freedoms (at least those who are left).

King (Metacomet) Philip, Sachem of the Wampanoags, 1676, full length, standing at treaty table (Library of Congress)

---

Next time…

The next article will transition from Connecticut to the southern colonies/states settlers and proprietors. Then the timeline covering other events and changes and documents of historical significance in pre-revolutionary America.

---